ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2022
Historicity at the heart of biology.
Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- What teleology (if any) does the Organisational Approach naturalise?History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Biology's transformation: from observation through experiment to computation.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Second-order division in sectors as a prepattern for sensory organs in vertebrate development.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2022Article
- Biological constraints as norms in evolution.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2022Article
- Toward a Logic of the Organism: A Process Philosophical Consideration.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- On the problem of biological form.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2020Article
- The Identity of Organisms in Scientific Practice: Integrating Historical and Relational Conceptions.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most mathematical modeling in biology relies either implicitly or explicitly on the epistemology of physics. The underlying conception is that the historicity of biological objects would not matter to understand a situation here and now, or, at least, historicity would not impact the method of modeling. We analyze that it is not the case with concrete examples. Historicity forces a conceptual reconfiguration where equations no longer play a central role. We argue that all observations depend on objects defined by their historical origin instead of their relations as in physics. Therefore, we propose that biological variations and historicity come first, and regularities are constraints with limited validity in biology. Their proper theoretical and empirical use requires specific rationales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32613275What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.